That's not really an accurate description of why the states were established. The initial states were the consequence of different centers of colonization and the limits of transportation and communication speeds. Their borders were mostly arbitrary geographical boundaries (hey, there's a river!). They developed unique economic and cultural traditions based on what could be grown, produced, or not, in their borders. That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs. Movement between them was hardly the motivation.
> That people didn't want to join them up into one stronger federal government has stronger ties to the general tribal nature of people and the significantly different economic and cultural needs.
To be fair, one of the reasons was to limit the power of the federal government. But that power was limited partly in order to prevent one state from having power over another; that's why the Senate is so laid out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise), and one of the reasons the federal government is seated in neutral territory (Federalist #43).
That sounds fantastic, and it's a good thought---but at a certain point we are all interdependent on one-another. Relative to belief in science and global warming, what Arkansas does with its air certainly affects areas outside of Arkansas.
That's why we have a federal court system, right? If areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what Arkansas is doing to their air, they can produce evidence in a court of law and put a stop to it.
If the areas outside of Arkansas have a problem with what they teach their students (and it's really that damaging), well, just let a clear winner emerge over time.
The states were established so that U.S. citizens could move to the state with the laws that best suited them.